Acceptability of Controversial Energy Technologies: Effects of Priming Supply Security vs. Threat

The combination of clear and relatable narratives with comprehensible and actionable policy measures has been demonstrated to be an effective strategy in addressing public concerns and enhancing support for energy-related policies. However, the effectiveness of such policies depends on factors such as the salience and urgency of the policy issue, the understanding of the mechanism and public perceptions of costs and benefits of the policies. Novel research contributes toa more nuanced understanding of how threats on energy supply, e.g. due to geopolitical instability, affect public acceptance of controversial measures. Notably, controversial energy technologies may become permissible in circumstances where there are limited alternative options available and where they could serve as a solution of last resort. Following the reasoning that the end justifies the means, threats to energy supply may increase the likelihood of public acceptance of policy measures that foresee the use of controversial technologies (such as hydraulic fracturing or geothermal extraction methods) for energy generation. This idea is tested experimentally using a priming technique to alter the perceived uncertainty of energy supply across two treatment groups. In a mixed design on a household sample from Germany and France, acceptability of controversial energy technologies is assessed pre- and post-treatment (within) across three experimental treatment conditions (between): (i) control group, (ii) high uncertainty group, (iii) low uncertainty group. The mediating role of risk perception and moderation effects from environmental and national self-identity are analysed.